What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?

[mheslep]

If France was continuously engaging in actions that resulted in deaths of non-combatants, there would also be serious international attention directed its way.

The analogy is hopelessly flawed. Add: neighboring states publicly dedicated to France's destruction and that deny its right to exist, years of suicide and terror attacks against French non-combatants, years of rocket attacks from a neighboring states on its citizens. Add all of that and then imagine a French response.

BTW, I suspect France would do far worse given its recent history (Rainbow Warrior) if it was actually in Israel's circumstance.

 

[Werg22]

The analogy is hopelessly flawed. Add: neighboring states publicly dedicated to France's destruction and that deny its right to exist, years of suicide and terror attacks against French non-combatants, years of rocket attacks from a neighboring states on its citizens. Add all of that and then imagine a French response.

BTW, I suspect France would do far worse given its recent history (Rainbow Warrior) if it was actually in Israel's circumstance.

And what are these neighboring states that are publicly dedicated to Israel's destruction? I'd like to see official government statements to that regard, past 1979's peace treaty.

Also, I like how you make it seem as though these attack happen in a vacuum, without any provocation whatsoever on Israel's part or prior wrongdoing.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no need for hypotheticals. Most developed countries have/have had such menaces:

-The British had the Falklands and the Irish
-The Irish have...the Irish
-The French have Algeria
-The Spanish have the Basques
-The Russians have the Chechens and the Afghans
-The US has the Afghans and the Libyans
-The Chinese have the Tibetans
-The Iraqis have the Kurds
-And everyone has the Somalis

No two are exactly alike, and while some are justified and some not, in all cases the propaganda of the smaller group is that they are oppressed by the bigger country.

 

[russ_watters]

And what are these neighboring states that are publicly dedicated to Israel's destruction?

The one that is the subject of this thread.

Also, I like how you make it seem as though these attack happen in a vacuum, without any provocation whatsoever on Israel's part or prior wrongdoing.

Israel certainly isn't completely blameless, but it is difficult for them to ever have more than a short moratorium on fighting given the near constant stream of attacks they are under. The rocket and mortar attacks are pretty much by definition indescriminate: they are not precisely aimed and are rarely connected to any specific Israeli action.

The rocket attacks are basically just poking Israel with a stick to remind them that they are there and want to destroy them.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is sad, pitiable, and inevitable. I don't really understand it, however.


Aildno: My point was corruption for decades has trained the Gazans to fear their leaders, hate the Israelis, and become dependent on aid. There is no good reason for that last one either, except that the international community will happily skate over a hundreds of thousands of dead Rwandans to complain about an Israeli targeted strike.

that's the way it goes, though. no one cares until you see it on television. no one cared about serbia until images reminiscent of nazi concentration camps came out. and the world was hardly even aware of what was happening in rwanda until the bodies started washing down the rivers into neighboring countries. and to this extent, the palestinians are doing it exactly right. they wanted press and they got it. people will actually pay attention to their concerns, now, because they refuse to be ignored.

 

[Evo]

they wanted press and they got it. people will actually pay attention to their concerns, now, because they refuse to be ignored.

But they're getting very bad attention, they're turning a lot of people against them. Each time they do these things, they look worse to the public. People have no sympathy for hostile, irrational groups, like the one on the floatilla.

 

[Werg22]

The one that is the subject of this thread.

What? There was no mention of a state in "the subject of this thread".

 

[Werg22]

But they're getting very bad attention, they're turning a lot of people against them. Each time they do these things, they look worse to the public. People have no sympathy for hostile, irrational groups, like the one on the floatilla.

Really? I was under the complete opposite impression. If anything, Israel is losing public support.

 

[Proton Soup]

But they're getting very bad attention, they're turning a lot of people against them. Each time they do these things, they look worse to the public. People have no sympathy for hostile, irrational groups, like the one on the floatilla.

i'm not sure i agree. they were defending their ship, and they weren't attacking civilians. of the weapons put on display, you can't really make a case for attempting to supply arms to militant groups in Gaza, only defending the ship. it wasn't even an effective defense.

 

[Evo]

Really? I was under the complete opposite impression. If anything, Israel is losing public support.

Not according to people I talk to.

Here's a recent poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/Support-Israel-Near-Record-High.aspx

 

[Evo]

i'm not sure i agree. they were defending their ship, and they weren't attacking civilians. of the weapons put on display, you can't really make a case for attempting to supply arms to militant groups in Gaza, only defending the ship. it wasn't even an effective defense.

They weren't defending their ship, they provoked a confrontation. IMO, those people aren't rational. Their type of irrational hostilities don't sit well with most Americans.

 

[Proton Soup]

They weren't defending their ship, they provoked a confrontation. IMO, those people aren't rational. Their type of irrational hostilities don't sit well with most Americans.

no, they're perfectly rational. they're just willing to die for their cause. you probably know some people like that.

 

[lisab]

no, they're perfectly rational. they're just willing to die for their cause. you probably know some people like that.

But like I said in an earlier post, this conflict goes waaaaay back and as far as we know, it's going to go faaaar into the future.

It's one thing to die for a cause, if your death will change things. The people on that boat, their deaths will mean nothing in the long run. I think that's irrational.

 

[Evo]

no, they're perfectly rational. they're just willing to die for their cause. you probably know some people like that.

No, people I know prefer to use their intellect if they have a grievance. That is how you gain respect for your cause. They will not refuse to stop irrational attacks.

 

[Proton Soup]

But like I said in an earlier post, this conflict goes waaaaay back and as far as we know, it's going to go faaaar into the future.

It's one thing to die for a cause, if your death will change things. The people on that boat, their deaths will mean nothing in the long run. I think that's irrational.

yeah, could be. i have no idea where it will lead. if history is a guide, then not much will change.

 

[russ_watters]

What? There was no mention of a state in "the subject of this thread".

Being intentionally dense/coy is trolling. Stop.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Not according to people I talk to.

Here's a recent poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/Support-Israel-Near-Record-High.aspx

That poll is from back in February. I think Werg is talking about losing public support because of the boat boarding

 

[Gokul43201]

There is no need for hypotheticals. Most developed countries have/have had such menaces:

-The British had the Falklands and the Irish
-The Irish have...the Irish
-The French have Algeria
-The Spanish have the Basques
-The Russians have the Chechens and the Afghans
-The US has the Afghans and the Libyans
-The Chinese have the Tibetans
-The Iraqis have the Kurds
-And everyone has the Somalis

No two are exactly alike, and while some are justified and some not, in all cases the propaganda of the smaller group is that they are oppressed by the bigger country.

Do you mean by this that it is untrue in all these cases, that the smaller group is oppressed by the bigger country?

EDIT: Ignore this post.

 

[arildno]

Gokul:
What is it you don't understand about Russ' sentence:
"some are justified and some are not?"

Propaganda is not necessarily lies, but an assemblage of public posturing and determination to get some view disseminated into the media/populace at large.

And, in that respect, Russ' assertion that all such minority propaganda revolves around being oppressed by the majority is fairly well substantiated.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul:
What is it you don't understand about Russ' sentence:
"some are justified and some are not?"

Oops! Completely read past that - can't imagine how I did it!

 

[arildno]

Oops! Completely read past that - can't imagine how I did it!

None of us are immune from making largely unconscious deletions in anybody of a text. Our brain is also creative in, by skimming through, inserting what is felt to be "probable content".

This perceptual economisation gives, unfortunately, much undeserved credibility to triumphant cries of "selective bias!"

I'm glad you gave a prompt message that you had misread Russ' post.

 

[mheslep]

And what are these neighboring states that are publicly dedicated to Israel's destruction? I'd like to see official government statements to that regard, past 1979's peace treaty.

Seems hard to miss given the 1948 war, the 1967 war, the recent and well publicized attacks/kidnappings/bombings by Hamas from Gaza, by Hezbolah from Lebanon, both funded and sponsored by other Middle Eastern states. But anyway:

Hamas, now the ruling party in Gaza, 1988 Charter

Goals of the HAMAS:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian
movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is
Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of
Palestine. (Article 6)

On the Destruction of Israel:
-----------------------------
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it. (Preamble)
[...]

Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:
-------------------------------------------
'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and
international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of
the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than
a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of
Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by
Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a
waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

 

[mheslep]

There is no need for hypotheticals. Most developed countries have/have had such menaces:

-The British had the Falklands and the Irish
-The Irish have...the Irish
-The French have Algeria
-The Spanish have the Basques
-The Russians have the Chechens and the Afghans
-The US has the Afghans and the Libyans
-The Chinese have the Tibetans
-The Iraqis have the Kurds
-And everyone has the Somalis

No two are exactly alike, and while some are justified and some not, in all cases the propaganda of the smaller group is that they are oppressed by the bigger country.

True these are examples of large, more powerful countries sniped at by drastically smaller ones. Israel is also fairly strong militarily, but it is vastly outnumbered by its foes in terms of population, who are within rock throwing distance, and who don't simply have some unheard grievance or seek religious independence, but publicly seek to destroy the state of Israel.

Those conditions necessarily require Israel to assume a more hair trigger defense posture than seen in the example states above, and in such a posture it should be unsurprising that we sometimes see Israeli Defense Forces respond with regrettable or excessive force, or even in ways against Israel's own best interest. Soldiers are not policemen.

 

[Evo]

Not to mention that the Israeli soldiers that tried to board the ship were brutally attacked by the militants on the ship and the soldiers were fighting for their lives.

The "Free Gaza" movement, which organized the flotilla, said the group's goal was to shatter the blockade. Seems to me they just threw some supplies on board so they could try to make people believe they were just a warm hearted charity.

 

[Pattonias]

Where are the cries of protest when Israel is getting bombed? It always seems like even then people are like "Well, that's what you get for oppressing them."
Reading all the articles about this is getting really tiresome. The "Free Gaza" movement has gotten exactly what it wanted from this.

(Honestly, what is Ireland going to do If they end up losing someone in the same way these other guys did. I don't recall hearing much about their huge swing in the UN or their Navy's prowess on the high seas. Why don't we have flotillas of people trying to bring aid to Tibet(I know Tibet is land-locked).)

 

[arildno]

Why don't we have flotillas of people trying to bring aid to Tibet(

Because the Chinese are actually dangerous, whereas every leftist knows that Jews are not.

You-know-who the most dangerous culture is, and that is why leftists go out of their way to please them.

They won't be able to do so, and will only earn contempt&tyranny as their reward.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26562617/" an appropriate naval delivery of humanitarian aid to a country beleaguered by a hostile power, despite military dominance of the hostile power in the surrounding waters.

The flagship of the U.S. 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, the USS Mount Whitney, arrived at the Georgian port of Poti on Friday with humanitarian supplies.

USS Mount Whitney in the Black Sea.

The in-your-face anchorage at Poti came as Vice President Dick Cheney visited nearby Ukraine, another former Soviet republic that feels threatened by Moscow's military maneuverings.

 

[EnumaElish]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26562617/" an appropriate naval delivery of humanitarian aid to a country beleaguered by a hostile power, despite military dominance of the hostile power in the surrounding waters.

USS Mount Whitney in the Black Sea.

Had Russia announced a naval blockade?

 

[EnumaElish]

You-know-who the most dangerous culture is, and that is why leftists go out of their way to please them.

They won't be able to do so, and will only earn contempt&tyranny as their reward.

Who/what is the most dangerous culture? You mean religious/nationalist fanaticism of any and all stripes? Or do you have someone in particular in mind?

More generally I don't get why the left would be trying to appease someone just because they are dangerous. Are the lefties afraid? Are they buying time? Do they have some ulterior motive?

Your general line of discussion under this thread has been informative and at times illuminating. But your last post makes absolutely no sense to me. Should I be afraid?

 

[arildno]

Or do you have someone in particular in mind?

Of course.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Who/what is the most dangerous culture? You mean religious/nationalist fanaticism of any and all stripes? Or do you have someone in particular in mind?

He's got to be referring to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. I mean, no one else claims to be the "only righteous man left on Earth".

 

[Werg22]

Of course.

The others don't even come close. Not even the Nazis or Aztecs.

Wow. Tell me, would you rather be hanged/executed and meet a quick death or forced to wear a pink triangle and die a miserable death in a concentration camp? There is one that is noticeably more sadistic than the other, I think.

And what culture are you talking about exactly? Lebanese? Moroccan? Egyptian? Persian? Berber? Turkish?

 

[arildno]

As for, for example, religious discriminatory badges, these go back to the Pact of Umar in the 8th century.

The Catholic Church didn't start with that prior than in the Lateran Council of 1215.

I couldn't care less about what faint hopes you've got, due to your state of blissful ignorance.

 

[Pattonias]

Extremism is the most dangerous culture by any standard and throughout human history. Followed closely by a lifestyle of perpetual ignorance.

 

[mheslep]

Had Russia announced a naval blockade?

[STRIKE]No, but t[/STRIKE]The Russians have an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet" based out of the Black Sea, and I posit that they would have (were?) harassed (ing) other vessels bringing aid to Georgia in that period.

Edit: Hmm, appears I was wrong, Russia did more than harass, they did indeed set up a Black Sea blockade of Georgia per press accounts:

Russia also sent a naval squadron to blockade Georgia's Black Sea coast. Ukraine, where the ships were based, warned Russia in response that it has the right to bar the ships from coming back to port because of their mission.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/georgia-russia-conflict-moves-to-the-black-sea/83533/

Warships from Russia's Black Sea fleet by Sunday morning had clamped down a naval blockade on Georgia's coastline, turning back "several civilian ships," said Aleksander Lomaia, Georgia's National Security Council Chief, in a statement.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3551100,00.html

MOSCOW, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) -- Russian warships had arrived at Georgian Black Sea coast to prevent weapons from landing by sea, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian navy source as saying Sunday.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/10/content_9138604.htm#prof